After years of dispute over city code violations, a dilapidated apartment building where accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald briefly lived is coming down.

Jane Bryant, whose company, Align LP, owns the property at 600 Elsbeth St. in north Oak Cliff, is under a court order to raze the structure by Friday. She probably won’t meet the deadline, but a friend has begun the work, pulling down most of its outer wall of brick.

After a city building inspector stopped work at the site on Tuesday, Bryant said she will apply Wednesday for a required demolition permit.

“I’ll salvage what I can and then demo the rest,” she said, standing outside the 87-year-old structure, near piles of reddish-brown bricks and exposed wooden walls.

The salvaging is under way. Bryant said she recently sold the toilet bowl from apartment No. 2, where Oswald, his wife, Marina, and their daughter, June, lived for four months in 1962 and 1963.

“He wanted it for his man cave,” she said of the buyer, whom she declined to identify.

Bryant has listed the apartment’s bathtub and built-in telephone nook for sale on eBay and said she plans to offer windows, light fixtures and a vanity from Oswald’s four-room, ground-floor unit, as well as bricks and perhaps more.

The two-story building at Elsbeth and Davis streets was one of three places Oswald lived in north Oak Cliff. He and his family moved from Elsbeth to an apartment at 214 W. Neely St. on March 3, 1963. He was renting a room at 1026 N. Beckley Ave. on Nov. 22 that year, the day he was arrested after the killings of President John F. Kennedy and Dallas police Officer J.D. Tippit.

The latter two residences are occupied today. The Elsbeth building has been boarded up and surrounded by a chain-link fence for several years.

Bryant bought the property in August 2007 with plans to renovate the apartments. She said she later learned she had lost the right to provide housing there because the 10 units had been vacant for six months. The property at the time was zoned for commercial use.

The city sued in March 2008, alleging 26 violations of minimum housing standards and asking that the 8,700-square-foot structure be repaired or demolished.

Bryant disputed the findings of city inspectors and said they had unfairly targeted her property. At a municipal court hearing in April 2010, she agreed that the building was unfit for habitation. She also said she had a plan and funding to restore the apartments but didn’t want to spend more money at the site until the required zoning was in place. The City Council later approved a zoning change to allow residential uses of the property.

At the April hearing, then-city administrative judge Victor Lander said he wanted to avoid demolition if possible. “I am loath to requiring the destruction of housing, particularly if it can be renovated and repaired and has some historic value,” he said. “The most important thing here is that we save this housing.”

In November 2010, Bryant agreed to repair the structure to meet city standards by June 13, 2011, or show progress toward that goal. After she failed to comply, the judge ordered its demolition as a safety hazard and “urban nuisance,” noting the building has no historic designation.

Bryant appealed to state district court but in May agreed to demolish the building.

She has listed the property for sale and said Tuesday she hopes something positive will come of the site. “I wish I could have figured out a way to make it work,” she said.

The district court order required her to secure a demolition permit by Oct. 1 and have the site “blade clean” by Nov. 30. If not, the city has authority to clear the site and put a lien on the property to cover the costs.

Whether the city returns to court to resolve the matter remains to be seen, Chris Bowers, first assistant city attorney, said Tuesday.

“That may well depend on how diligently and promptly she moves,” he said. “She needs to engage in her best efforts to comply with the court’s order.”

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.